Grounded Theory analysis of data from edonis interviews 22-24

8/14/2019 Grounded Theory analysis of data from edonis interviews 22-24

1/34

1

Research II: Qualitative Data Analysis 0130242

Collect some data using one or more qualitative methods, for example semi-

structured interviewing, participant observation, or discourse analysis. Analyse

the data you have collected, demonstrating how you established coding rules,

and developed categories and themes. What have you learned about data

analysis in this exercise?

Unifying ideas analytically (Charmaz, 2006:71)

From describing to analysing data

In this essay, I reflect upon my coding of segments from three semi-structured

interviews and the process of constructing categories, using a Grounded Theory

approach. I remain close to the chronology of my research, as I reflect upon the

framework for my micro- and macro-analysis. My approach is shown to be

systematic, not formulaic (Charmaz, 2006), with three themes emerging from my

reflection on the process. These are key themes which may be relevant to theemerging researcher who is considering using a Grounded Theory methodology.

This examination of my analysis will show that relationships, roles, and routes,

should be engaged with and sketched out prior to analysing data.

Firstly, by reflecting upon the shifting roles of the interviewees and myself as

researcher, I highlight issues around the process of analysis and my ideal that

Grounded Theory methodology would lead to the co-construction of categories.

How one becomes sensitised and subsequently acts upon these categories is

central to the extent to which relationships and power may shift. Secondly, I

examine the implications of my decision to write memos instead of carrying out

axial coding when constructing initial categories. I show how this part of the

process needed to be, like the categories, under continual review in light of


2/34

2

changing relationships, contexts and fresh data. Thirdly, validity and reliability

were aimed for through the establishment of a systematic audit trail, unique to

the research context. However the usefulness and relevance of this trail is

questioned as I idealised the construction of knowledge with research

participants; participants who did not have access to significant parts of the trail.

I go on to problematise the involvement of interviewees who, during the follow-up

conversation, moved towards the role of collaborator rather than interviewee or

participant. Before explaining my Grounded Theory approach, I provide some

background on how data was sampled.

The edonis project commenced in October 2008 with over one hundred

participants and a research website that encouraged: free communication; the

sharing of self-published online artifacts; and regular publishing of qualitative

data, that is, semi-structured interviews where the interviewees talked about their

engagement with the social web. I made the assumption that the social web

will visibly continue to grow and change, and aimed to construct a new analytical

framework with participants; one which would be constantly revisable. Research

participants were sought from three broad areas: educators who were not using

the social web; educators who made limited use of this; and educators who

made regular use. The delineation of each of these types of use of the social

web was similar to the division of use by educators in three fields of education

with which I was familiar, and from where I sought participants. These fields

were: residential schools (not using the social web), Chartered Teachers (limited

use), and education bloggers (regular use).

I recognised during the pilot phase of the edonis project that three consecutive

interviews had been arranged with educators who had indicated, and I was able

to verify, that they were experienced in the substantive area of professional

action, namely the use of the social web within education. These were

participants who had used recent developments in information and

communication technologies (ICT) to share aspects of their educational life with


3/34

3

other educators. I identified them as having a voice online and had read of them

previously mentioning the term PLN (widely regarded as standing for personal

learning network), which I had taken an interest in. Having sampled from the

edonis participants, I now briefly explore why I selected a Grounded Theory

methodology. I conclude that being visibly reflexive communicated to

participants that a new framework was being constructed during the process and

that, as an interpretivist researcher, my role was within a collaborative process,

albeit one where I was recognised as being more skilled in the methodology than

the participants.

I initially considered using critical discourse analysis (CDA), as I had invited the

interviewees to suggest what actions they attributed value to, believing that I

could have identified powerful and concealed assumptions. Analysis of this kind

would have been problematic however, as I had not attempted to reconcile my

roles and power relations throughout my research activities. I recognised that my

voice, assumptions, actions and interactions, contributed to the nature and

content of each interview, and power relations within it. These would have

influenced the interviewees talk. This may have been unavoidable to a degree;

however I considered that a visibly reflexive approach was necessary to show

that: a disinterested stance was sought; an individuals feelings and experiences

were not elevated as typical of the sample; and data could be abstracted.

This interpretivist approach recognised my ideal in this project; that the

participants and I were jointly constructing a new analytical framework. However,

engaging with this approach highlights where the literature problematise

Grounded Theory, for example when the categories become distant from data

and susceptible to the interpreted personal experiences of the researcher or

participants. Grounded Theory gives the researcher the role of interpreting data

in from of them, however later I explore how I diluted my responsibility for a

period of time, where I trusted the participants to become collaborators during the

follow-up conversation. Initially though, the interviewees were sidelined in the


4/34

4

pursuit of objectivity, where a reflexive approach was necessary to exclude

preconceptions from the naming of concepts. I start by: introducing Grounded

Theory; outlining my constructivist ideal and coding rules; and explaining how I

interpreted Grounded Theory for this analysis, influenced by the work of Strauss

and Corbin (1998) and Charmaz (2006).

Grounded Theory is a research strategy whose purpose is to generate theory

from data (Punch and Wildy, 1995:2) and was established by Glaser and

Strauss (1967). It enables researchers to construct substantive theory or an

analytical framework which is new, though always uncertain and unfinished, and,

in the abstract, collectively represents social actors and social worlds (Clarke,

1998). My application of Grounded Theory and ideal of co-constructivist activity

derived from Charmazs standpoint that the researcher is part of the world they

study and that any analytic framework is a construction rather than a discovery

(Charmaz, 2006). Strauss and Corbin (1998:5) refer to these constructions as

being, qualifiable, modifiable, and open, in part, to negotiation; reflecting the

ontological position that the social world is constructed primarily through action

and interaction. However, to continually construct, defend, repair and chang(e)

social realities (Silverman, 2007:38), I would eventually need to compare the

emerging categories with other parts of the social world. I briefly develop this

requirement for a reflexive mindset by illustrating how I engaged with further

issues around validity.

I interpreted only data which was in front of me and recognised an emerging,

common issue across the interviews. However, as I had interpreted my data in

fresh ways (Charmaz, 2006:2), and because language has meaning and power,

I could not claim to have acted neutrally, although I did pursue objectivity.

Researching with participants necessitated self-reflection and action to ensure

validity. I built into the process a follow-up conversation with interviewees where

the emerging categories and issues around them were discussed. Later in the

paper, I return to this point in the analysis to focus on the role change which


5/34

5

occurred for the interviewees, and the impact that this had upon the later iteration

of categories and my constructivist ideal. These categories were written in a

form which was portable; that is, they were in context non-specific terms, such

that they could be tested and developed through constant comparison carried-out

in other areas of the social world. Having discussed my selection of Grounded

Theory, illustrating its relevance in the fluid area of the social web, I go on to

establish the coding rules which I applied to my initial analysis of data from the

three interview segments. These rules are characterised by the researchers

sensitivity, open-mindedness, and proximity to data. Axial coding and the

involvement of the interviewees did not feature at this point in the process,

although an audit trail had been established. Here I worked alone, creatively

coding data and then naming concepts. The participants were not yet

collaborators and had no access to the disaggregated or fractured data, that is,

the product of line-by-line coding which axial coding or memo writing may

subsequently conceptualise (Strauss and Corbin, 1998).

Coding is the categoriz(ation) (of) segments of data with a short name that

simultaneously summarizes and accounts for each piece of data (Charmaz,

2006:43); portray(ing) meanings and actions in stories (Charmaz, 2006:45). I

began my analysis from the interviewees perspectives; preserving their actions

(Charmaz, 2006:49), while operating in the abstract. Codes were written in a

way which could not have been contextualised or attributed to an individual. I

established broad early coding rules, influenced by Strauss and Corbin (1998).

They, like Charmaz, argue that Grounded Theory methodology should not be

prescriptive. It should encourage the researcher into a relaxed, reflexive state,

where they are in a conceptual mode of analysis (Strauss and Corbin,

1998:44). I focused on how interviewees conceptualised significant events,

objects and action (Strauss and Corbin, 1998:103), and this led, through

comparing interviews for similarities and differences, to concepts being formed

around an issue or problem of concern to them. Charmaz (2006) states that

coding actions rather than topics is counter-intuitive, however he argues that it


6/34

6

helps to avoid early recourse to preconceptions. Preconceptions can also occur

from lifting interviewees in vivo codes (Charmaz, 2006), that is, talk which

jumps directly from the interview transcript. Having established that my coding

rules gave me the sole role of creatively naming concepts, and having avoided

extant theories or in vivo codes which may damage the validity of my Grounded

Theory approach through incorporating preconceptions, I explain more about the

analytical framework and introduce the idea of the sensitised researcher. This

had implications for my level of collaboration with the interviewees in the

interrogation of the emerging categories. I go on to justify initially omitting axial

coding, illustrating my satisfaction with memo writing as a route to the

construction of early categories.

I openly coded portions of the three interviews, making notes, comments,

observations and queries in memos (ODonoghue, 2007:136). I broke data

down into concepts using a line-by line approach (Figure 1). Charmaz (2006:14)

suggests coding (r)ich data (which) reveal participants views, feelings,

intentions and actions, as well as the contexts and structures of their lives. I

decided that initial, open coding would be carried out on data from a portion of

each of the three interviews in which participants spoke of a, the, or their,

network or networks (Appendix A). I analysed: how their talk was ordered; how

they acted socially; and what they had, or were attempting to, come to terms with

(Silverman, 2007).

Figure 1 Line-by-line coding of edonis interview #24


7/34

7

I worked between the transcripts, coding files and audio files, and generated

codes for each action and interaction referred to by the interviewees. Open

coding led me to interrogate data to give up codes, that is, to get a sense of

what was going on here. After naming the concepts, I grouped them into

categories, which, explain Strauss and Corbin (1998), enable the abstract

labelling of phenomena, allowing explanation and prediction. By phenomena,

Strauss and Corbin (1998:120) mean, repeated patterns of happenings, events,

or actions/interactions that represent what people do or say in response to the

problems and situations in which they find themselves. This interpretation gives

the reader a sense of the flavour of the data as a whole (Silverman, 2007:115).

When an issue emerged from data, I coded to give language to the phenomenon

(ODonoghue, 2007:52). Prior to reflecting on the three themes through the next

feature of my analysis, I briefly explain how one becomes sensitive to a field of

research or sensitised to data. This is relevant to my examination of the role of

researcher and participants.

Sensitising means to see alternative explanations and to recognise properties

and dimensions of emergent concepts. (Strauss and Corbin, 1998:59) Charmaz

(2006:47) states that this enables you to be sensitive to meaning without forcing

explanations on data. That I was sensitised to data during my analysis was

relevant to how I initially named concepts and then worked on clustering these in

constructing early categories. At this point I worked alone, immersing myself in

the process of conceptualising fractured data. Being sensitive to data or to the

substantive field of research can enhance ones ability to contribute to the

construction of categories, however sensitising oneself through becoming a

reflexive researcher requires systematic planning, action, and opportunities to

interrogate the constructed categories. I later show that the nature and structure

of my methodology meant that participants were unlikely to move from being

sensitive to the substantive field of research, to being sensitised to data, even

during the period of collaboration. Key to me becoming sensitised to data, was

the act of memo writing.


8/34

8

Strauss and Corbin (1998:110) define a memo as (t)he researchers record of

analysis, thoughts, interpretations, questions, and directions for further data

collection. Memo writing gave me space to think and express myself without

having to consider academic conventions. During memo writing I asked myself

questions about data (Charmaz, 2006:51): What process is at issue here? How

does the process develop? How do the participants act, think, and change; and

what consequences are visible? Two types of memo were written. Firstly, I

wrote operational notes as the interviewees spoke (Figure 2).

Figure 2 Memo-writing during edonis interview #22

Early memos were mostly descriptive rather than analytical, and were

diagrammatical to the extent that related text was clustered around specific parts

of the memo sheet. Strauss and Corbin (1998:220) state that operational memos

should be orderly, progressive, systematic, and easily retrievable for sorting and


9/34

9

cross-referencing. However the important working documents, to which I

returned, changed, and used for greater insight, were the memos written while

listening to or reading the interviews a second time. Each memo was dated

when written and was titled with the number of the interview from which it

derived. My memos contained: emerging codes and categories, and changes in

them; and raw data, analytical ideas and breaks in logic (Strauss and Corbin,

1998). Further questions, emerging concepts, properties and dimensions, and

inconsistencies and variables, were colour-coded (Appendix B).

The memos for the three interviews were compared for similarities and

differences to form the initial concepts and later, emerging categories (Appendix

C, part 1). The memos written for the three interview segments ran to six

thousand, four hundred words; much longer than the interview transcripts. I

realised that to be manageable, my memo writing needed to be more focused

around new codes which appeared to be relevant, and the concepts which I had

been in the process of naming. Other issues arose. I had to deal with my

constructed concepts not yet being able to move beyond my interpretation of

data from the interviewees talk; and also my analysis becoming unfocused and

unmanageable, possibly due to not engaging in axial coding. I expand on these

and show how all three themes converge again. In my pursuit of a valid and

reliable emerging framework, I aimed to remain close to participants and data.

My actions illustrated that I perceived myself as researching alongside them, with

no hierarchy, and with trust which would lead to collaboration at a future point in

the analysis, that is, the follow-up conversation. I return now to linking the three

themes of this paper to my early analysis of data.

A concept is an abstract representation of an event, object or action/inaction that

a researcher identifies as being significant in the data (Strauss and Corbin,

1998:102). I named concepts through interpreting only data which I collected.

As all interview data were available online along with, latterly, my constructed

concepts and categories, I was unable and unwilling to claim greater overall


10/34

10

insight. Any participant could have engaged with, internalised, and interpreted

the documents and media with which I was working, by accessing the material

online. However, I was committed to working with data in a creative, reflexive

manner, to construct an analytical framework. The tension at work here arose

from my initial decision not to carry out early axial coding, relying instead on open

coding and memo writing to name concepts. I briefly explore the contribution that

these activities make to analysis, before outlining my approach.

Axial coding is where one relates categories to sub-categories along the lines of

their properties and dimensions (Strauss and Corbin, 1998:124). Strauss (1987)

outlines the following as required tasks: laying out the properties of a category

and their dimensions, a task that begins during open coding; identifying the

variety of conditions, actions/interactions and consequences associated with a

phenomenon; relating a category to its sub-categories through statements

denoting how they are related to each other; and looking for clues in data which

denote how major categories might relate to each other. Initially in my analysis,

open and axial coding periods were indistinct, and I started to construct

categories from concepts as I was memo writing. I found that this approach to

synthesising and questioning data gave me the freedom to express myself, while

remaining close to data. Proceeding with axial coding at this stage risked me, an

inexperienced researcher, focusing on a later product, the categories, rather than

the earlier, vital activity of fracturing data; an activity which ensures that the audit

trail stretches over all of my analysis. Making the writing of memos central to my

process fitted with my ideal of constructing an analytical framework with

participants, and fitted with my avoidance of the over-use of early structures, as

may have occurred with the use of axial coding. Similar to the process of axial

coding, memos are part of the audit trail and can be revisited. Therefore

choosing to write memos at this stage did not adversely affect the validity of my

interpretation of data.


11/34

11

Charmaz (2006) recognises that it is difficult to separate open from axial coding,

therefore similarly, during my micro-analysis, I worked seamlessly between open

coding and memo writing, so that I moved quickly from fractured data through to

concepts. However, one consequence of not explicitly separating open and axial

coding was that, as new data arrived from the second and third interviews, there

was one less element or stage to assist my analysis in moving from concepts to

categories. Furthermore, by not utilising the support of discrete axial coding, I

did not identify the major categories prior to the follow-up conversation. This left

me unfocused, which was unsatisfactory for me as an inexperienced researcher.

However, this was highlighted by the participants early in the follow-up

conversation and I utilised the conversation, time and space to revisit data and

emerging categories; introducing axial coding alongside my memo-writing. Not

using axial coding earlier had resulted in part of the process and data being

invisible and not having its story told (Strauss and Corbin, 1998). Before

analysing the conversation in relation to the themes of this paper, I conclude my

reflections on how I constructed emerging categories, by summarising the

process and illustrating the iteration of the categories prior to the follow-up

conversation.

Strauss and Corbin (1998:124) define a category as a problem, issue, event, or

happening that is significant to respondents, stating that it is defined by its

properties and dimensions. I moved codes towards categories to assist me with

later comparison across contexts, and wrote in memos about connections

between codes; examining processes in relation to conditions, responses,

changes and consequences (Charmaz, 2006: 81). From my memo writing andopen coding, I constructed these categories as: information flow and

management; data and people; what it means to meet and to know people;

delineating relationships by social setting; positioning oneself in a/your network;

the self-publication of data; how text becomes visible; the act of service; learning

in a space other than a physical one; individuals experiences; the nature of talk;

affective projection; artifacts and action; and learning and earning (Appendix C,


12/34

12

part 1). Early-on, artifacts and action was subsumed into other emerging

categories which had similar properties and dimensions. These categories would

later be sorted under three themes or issues: dealing with new data; dealing with

new spaces; and dealing with new relationships (Appendix C, part 2). I wrote the

categories in a way which focused on action and interaction, and conditions and

consequences. This would later allow me to compare them to new data from

other contexts, thus facilitating the refinement of the categories and their

properties and dimensions.

With over nine thousand words of analysis across my memos and line-by-line

coding, I reduced the categories and focused on coding around those which

remained (Strauss, 1987). I revisited my initial coding to gain a greater

understanding of the early categories. This process encompassed focused

coding and the revisiting of properties and dimensions, and retrospectively could

be considered to have been axial coding. Focused coding means, using the

most significant and/or frequent earlier codes to sift through large amounts of

data (Charmaz, 2006:57), and this strategy was frequently repeated in the

process. I should have used focused coding earlier. This would have kept the

codes closer to data and would have made me more confident that my

interpretations were valid and reliable.

The categories framework which existed prior to the follow-up conversation can

be seen in Appendix C (part 2). I had analysed the concepts across the interview

segments again, to identify which had emerged in more than one setting and

could grouped with others as a category. I had to be creative to recognise,

group, and name the emerging categories along with their properties and

dimensions. Comparing data across the interviews, looking for similarities and

differences, enabled me to construct these properties and dimensions. Strauss

and Corbin (1998:79) state that the properties of a situation convey similes and

metaphors, and transcend the specific situation. Early examples from

categories under the theme or issue of Dealing with new data, included:


13/34

13

dipping in, channels, passing the parcel, opening packets, and turning a

switch. This approach could be labelled as being subjective, in that it is not

disinterested and abstract, and risked creating space for the inclusion of extant

theories and preconceptions. There are difficulties in creatively constructing

categories from interviewees who are representing their own world, and during

this part of the process I became concerned on two levels.

Firstly, I considered whether I had forced my explanations and preconceptions

onto data and the participants (Charmaz, 2006). Secondly, I considered the

extent to which the words that I brought to the categories were constructed from

my experiences. Strauss and Corbin (1998) state that one should be self-

conscious and reflexive during the analysis, as it is unlikely that ones

preconceptions and experiences can be hidden from the reader. Follow-up

conversations, for example, are where possible assumptions and threats to the

validity of data can be dealt with. In the next section I illustrate how my approach

was to change in light of the interviewees feedback during the follow-up

conversation, and I then critically analyse the setting-up, operation and

consequences of introducing this feature to the ongoing process. Although not

sensitised, the participants were sensitive to data to varying degrees, having

listened to one or more of the other interviews and having read some of my

analysis documents. I begin to conceive of these interviewees as participants

who, in a certain space and time, that is the follow-up conversation, became

collaborators in the analysis. Firstly, I introduce the rationale for involving the

participants and briefly explore issues around research ethics and the changing

nature of their interactions with myself.

Interpretivist researchers cannot rely on quantitative methods and analysis of

visible behaviour. They look to the negotiation of appropriate behaviours

(Popkewitz, 1984) and are open to helpful criticism (Strauss and Corbin,

1998:5). I invited each interviewee to take part in an online web conversation,

where I shared the iteration of the categories at the time. They commented on


14/34

14

the validity of my emerging categories and considered whether these fitted their

case. If I managed to crystalise participants experiences (Charmaz, 2006:54)

here, then my study could be said to fit the social world in which I operated as a

researcher. The conversation gave me the opportunity to explore, with the

interviewees, preconceptions, in vivo codes and metaphors (Silverman, 2007),

which I had noted in earlier memos. Around this event, I had constructed their

role, the space and the research activities, in such a way as to facilitate my ideal

of co-construction of a new analytical framework. Although I was the only person

who had read around Grounded Theory, I was unable to claim greater insight

into the substantive field of research than the participants, as the field is broadly

linked to fast-changing technology and practices. I also considered that I had

partly sensitised myself to data and the wider field using many of the same

communication tools and networks as the participants.

Some ethical issues were highlighted when this part of the process was

examined in relation to three relevant ethical guidelines for educational

researchers (SERA (2005), BERA (2004), and ESRC (2005)). However, as no

children or vulnerable adults were involved in my research, and the research was

not medically-related, this area of the methodology would not have required

detailed, higher-level consideration from an ethics committee. I needed to exhibit

and maintain research and ethics competence, and due to the iterative nature of

my research and analysis, I had to regularly reflect on how I avoided breaching

privacy around the acts of publication and making data available prior to my

interpretation and follow-up conversation. I had to maintain integrity throughout

all professional relationships within my research and, or particular interest and

consideration, my categories had to be constructed in a way which showed me to

be working towards making a worthwhile contribution to the quality of education

in our society. (SERA, 2005:i) My expectations were that the categories would

benefit learning professionals, by providing them with an emerging framework

which would help them to better understand the concept of personal learning

network. It would also enable them to understand the properties and to place


15/34

15

themselves along the dimensions, recognising choices and directions possible

through future action.

I met the interviewees in an online space for a fixed duration. I planned for us to

validate, interrogate, and engage with the earliest version of the emerging

categories, and properties and dimensions. Communication beforehand

emphasised the constructivist ideal of my analysis. To be able to contribute, I

made available to each (following consideration of the ethics guidelines): the

others edited interviews; my initial paper; and a fifteen-minute montage of the

three interview segments. These were accessible in a private online space

during the week before the conversation. This gave collaborators an opportunity

to consider my engagement with their data; possibly prompting: calls for

clarification, consideration of own contribution, and re-acquaintance or

introduction to some data. I provided a framework and an introduction to the

conversation, while being sensitive to the possibility of forcing responses through

my questioning and activity prompts. One aim was to establish whether my

interpretations were considered by them to be valid and reliable, and whether my

emerging categories and development of properties and dimensions 'fitted' data,

such that they could 'see themselves' in my analysis. Secondly, based upon the

extent to which I trusted the collaborators to make an informed and valid

contribution, I listed the categories on a wiki (editable online word document),

where they could collaborate on the editing of, for example, the properties and

dimensions. Despite having professional respect for each of them, I decided to

retract this facility almost immediately as each of the collaborators revealed at

the start of the conversation that they had not fully considered each of the files I

had made available to them.

Having shown how I manufactured a space for checking validity and developing

the analysis, I now reflect upon involving research participants in the interpretive

process; showing how emerging categories were interrogated. This activity was

messy and each collaborator gave in different ways. Following their input,


16/34

16

tighter, more focused categories emerged around a single issue; that of dealing

with ones personal learning network (PLN). To examine how I collaborated with

the interviewees at this point, I reflect upon threads in the follow-up conversation

where changes to the emerging categories were considered. In general during

this activity, it is evident that the collaborators moved closer to data and were

valued in the process of analysis.

The online conversation allowed me to invite the collaborators to pick out

concepts, and properties and dimensions, which they believed were

extant. 'Dealing with information flow and management' was attractive to

all, although all indicated that this would not be a new concept.

An interaction took place which helped to clarify how several properties

and dimensions, which each of the three collaborators had indicated had

relevance, had been particularly prominent in the interview segments.

These were subsequently developed into a major category.

I was challenged on some of my constructions, such as 'Dealing with

affective projection'. 'Affective' is a term used extensively in special

education; a field in which I work. I considered that this term may have

arisen directly from my own professional experiences. However, I laterdecided to retain the word affective, and I developed it further as a

category, by collecting properties and dimensions across my analysis

which named emotional aspects of network action and interaction.

Delineating both ends, and occasionally the midpoint of a variation across

a dimension, enabled each collaborator to place themselves on several

continua.

One collaborator suggested that preconceptions were a noticeable feature

of my analysis. However, as the substantive area appealed to them, they

stated that the existence of preconceptions was not an issue to them.

This illustrates that a research participant may not come to data from a

disinterested stance, and therefore may be unaware of the need to be

reflexive and open, and to work in the abstract. Accepting such a stance


17/34

17

from them on the inclusion of preconceptions would have impacted upon

my claim that the categories had been constructed solely from data.

During my analysis I named several properties and dimensions using

metaphors. I believed these to be my own, in the sense that they were based

upon my interpretation of the interview data. During my follow-up conversation,

when invited to highlight what they perceived as vague, incoherent terms, the

collaborators voiced dissatisfaction with some of the metaphors which I had

deployed. Although my process had been 'opened up', the audit trail was not

available in its entirety, and therefore it was not possible for collaborators to

engage with me as to how these metaphors had emerged. This challenged my

approach to the conversation. Several times I was required to note their

experience of dissatisfaction and either not respond (an approach which,

although respecting their voice, did not feel like genuine professional dialogue),

or justify my actions and writings. As an example, I refer to the 'pushing packet

unopened pushing packet opened pushing packet filtered' dimension,

under Dealing with new data information flow and management (Appendix C,

part 2). The metaphor relates to what one does when sending on new, packaged

data, which has come to you. This was revisited following the conversation and I

felt justified, upon reviewing the coding which was not visible to the collaborators,

that the metaphor did fit. Finally, an issue concerning the role of the collaborator

arose, as one made a commitment to work on the categories in the period

following our conversation. This forced me to revisit my conceptualisation of

'collaborator'. I considered limiting the depth of future collaboration, due to the

possibility of a broad range of, and variation in, collaborative actions. Such

variety during this first follow-up conversation may have led to vagueness of roles

and may have threatened the validity of the categories which now existed.

This paper is a reflective account of a shift from considering myself to be the sole

interpreter of data, to being open to collaborating with those participants who

appear to be engaged with the research process and data. However, my


18/34

18

responsibility for this process remains fundamental to ensuring the valid and

reliable construction of an analytical framework using a Grounded Theory

methodology. Although collaborators were able to listen to and internalise data,

and understand and affect how they were conceptualised and grouped into

categories, their contributions were not informed by my initial coding. It was

unrealistic to expect participants to have the time and inclination to consider open

and axial coding. Therefore, in working towards the next iteration of categories, I

must avoid a linear workflow process of analysis, where the limited input of short-

term collaborators are favourably weighted in relation to key aspects of my

approach, such as openness and constant comparison with old and new data.

The present iteration of my analysis is shown in Appendix D (parts 1 and 2). This

clearly illustrates the issue being interpreted, with major categories and

properties and dimensions explained in a further memo. I am examining (h)ow

participants deal with a phenomenon (ODonoghue, 2007:32), that is,

How do participants deal with new relationships, data and spaces. Presently,

my categories: are useful, closely fit data, have conceptual density, have been

modified, and are durable in the face of change (Charmaz, 2006:6). I have

started a journey to develop a transparent, inductive analytical framework around

the personal learning network, where categories have been developed thus far

which fit data from segments of three interviews.

The research question or problem will remain provisional, but will be owned by

the project, that is, it will continue to emerge from the constant comparison of

data collected from semi-structured interviews. However, as researcher, I will be

at the centre of structuring spaces and conversations which will take the

categories and apply them to other areas of the social world. This exposure to

new data will develop the categories, and properties and dimensions, until they

are saturated, that is, no new properties, dimensions, conditions,

actions/interactions or consequences are seen in the data. (Strauss and Corbin,

1998:136) Periods of collaboration with interviewees will be confined to regular,


19/34

19

small group, follow-up conversations. This is based upon my conclusion that I

have the most important role in the analysis; a role which requires: systematic

movement backwards and forwards through all data, old and new; the ability to

compare data for similarities and differences; and creativity to name

interpretations, with ones confidence derived from a comprehensive, intact, audit

trail.


20/34

20

Bibliography

BERA. 2004. Revised Ethical Guidelines for Educational Research. British

Educational Research Association: Southwell

Charmaz, K. 2006. Constructing grounded theory a practical guide through

qualitative analyis. Sage: London

Clarke, A. E. 1998. Disciplining reproduction: Modernity, American life sciences,

and the problems of sex. University of California Press: Berkeley

ESRC. 2005. Research Ethics Framework. Economic and Social Research

Council: Swindon

Glaser, B. G. and Strauss, A. L. 1967. The discovery of grounded theory. Aldine:

Chicago

ODonoghue, T. 2007. Planning your qualitative research project: an introduction

to interpretivist research in education. Routledge: New York

Popkewitz, T. S. 1984. Paradigm an Ideology in Educational Research: the social

functions of the intellectual. The Falmer Press: London

Punch, H. and Wildy, H. 1995. Grounded theory in educational administration:

leadership and change, Paper presented at the International Conference of the

Australian Council for Education Administration, Sydney, July.

SERA. 2005. Ethical Guidelines for Educational Research. Scottish Educational

Research Association: Glasgow


21/34

21

Silverman, 2007. A very short, fairly interesting and reasonably cheap book

about qualitative research. Sage: London

Strauss, 1987. Qualitative analysis for social scientists. University of Cambridge

Press: Cambridge

Strauss, A. L. and Corbin, J. 1998. Basics of qualitative research techniques

and procedures for developing grounded theory. Sage: London


22/34

22

Appendix A

Excerpt from the transcription of interview #23

You are someone who has mentioned previously on the edonis site that you are

actively developing a personal learning network, but what does that mean to you,

what does it look like, who or what does it consists of?

For me it is primarily a combination of blogs coming into an RSS reader, and I

think I am probably subscribed to about 120 at the moment, of which about half

are education blogging, probably the rest of that split three ways between

marketing and things like that, technology and various social ones, friends of

mine that are blogging and the other key component of that these days is Twitter

and following about 190 being followed by about just under 400 I think and so

that allows me access to a wide range of expertise but as I said earlier I am the

one filtering it and I control everything I read, I just dip in depending on what

other priorities I have got going on at the time

You mentioned about subscribing to blogs as maybe part of your personal

learning network, does that mean that you would count an educator in the States

whose blog appeals to you, would you count them as being in your personal

learning network?

Yes

Lets imagine you had never actually synchronously communicated with them,

would they still be part of your network?

Yes, for me, even if I have never met them, even if I have never commented on

them, if what they are doing is making a difference to my learning then they are

part of my PLN. There are people who I can have immediate access on them


23/34

23

almost on a day by day basis and there are probably a handful of people that I

will Twitter backwards and forwards or comment on their blogs regularly, all the

way down to people who I have never spoken to, never met before and may well

never do, but they are having an influence on my thinking and more directly to

my practice

You have touched on it a minute ago, but could you expand more on how you go

about managing the information that comes to you through your PLN.

My feed read is broken up into various folders. I try and stay on top of it and go

through it once every couple of days and on days when I cant there are probably

half a dozen blogs that I will pick on directly, and if the worst comes to the worst,

everything else gets marked always read because what seems to happen is if

there is something that is important enough, someone else will pick it up,

someone else will either share it or tweet about it so I will kind of pick it up

another way. There was a point where I went through desperately trying to read

everything but that then got in the way of various other things so I have

abandoned that approach. Just playing around the last couple of weeks, I have

installed Seismic to filter Twitter because I was getting to the stage where I felt

there was quite a lot I was missing, so I have got a group there of probably about

20 people whose tweets I dont want to miss.


24/34

24

Appendix B

follow-up questions properties dimensions concepts

Is Da selecting a description off-the-shelf? He reveals that the PLN is something

which he has considered, but which he remains unsatisfied. What is ones

relationship to those in the PLN? There is no typology being used here, though it

appears that one would be helpful to Da. I could compare conception of mentors

and mentoring between those who claim to have a PLN, and those who state that

they have a mentor. Where was the term PLN first used, and in what context?

Does it come from theory-building or has it developed through online artifacts

related to professionals action? This could be a term which grew from onlineaction and is now being claimed for ongoing, pre-existing relationships in

traditional public and private spaces. How do offline relationships help Da? He

appears to suggest that now relationships online and offline are not noticeably

distinguishable. I could ask about what things he is helped with. Is there then a

difference in what the PLN helps him with? For example, does the help relate to

education technology more than, say, classroom management? How have those

initially online-only relationships developed to where he now gives them real life

status? What does a real life relationship look like? Is it mutual? How does Da

presently make new professional relationships? How do the unknown, future-

supportive people become known? How are questions asked of those who are

not contactable digitally? Is there an internal hierarchy relating to responses to

questions ie how are the responses treated and weighted in relation to each

other, and to the little-known context of Das professional life? Da appears to

value asynchronous help and the potential for gathering multiple responses.

Does a response elevate someone within his PLN? What options does he give

himself for taking forward action with continued support? Does he return to the

person who gave the best answer? What about those whose advice he chooses

to discard on this occasion? Which specific issues are asked about online?


25/34

25

How does he classify these issues? How does he balance the possibility of an

early, short response versus delaying support in the later identifying of, and

approach to, a specific person and space for (one-to-one) discussion? How does

one work towards the goal of being guaranteed a response? I could ask Da to

illustrate what might be learnt in a learning network, or what the foci of his

network/s are (which I could then categorise he mentions support or advice,

though feels to an extent these are interchangeable). He mentions the formality

of Edtechroundup. This is not a corporate space, so where does the formality

derive from? Does formality relate to frequency, length, implicit and explicit

structure and hierarchies? Is there pressure on the self-publisher to write

formally? Where does this performative demand to blog come from? Is it the

(perceived) audience; from individual histories of constructing text; or the

permanency of the artifact? Is formality related to factors other than structure?

Da appears to suggest that learning is relative to greater time and space for

thought and live discussion. What would make learning less likely in a network

or to be less of a priority for the owner of the network? There appears to be an

issue with the degree of learning which occurs in a mentoring or helping role, and

which occurs in a flattened group space. Which education topics are more likely

to be discussable in an online space by a group? How could his valued online

learning (group) experiences be replicable in his non-digital professional groups?

What types of impact does Da wish to experience? What is taken out of a

structured space? Is it something which requires further processing or is there

something off-the-shelf? What, if anything, is constructed at the end of the

discussion or listening period? Does the network activity continue afterwards or

is there a break in communication? To what extent does the network connect

with other networks, experiences, artifacts and theories?


26/34

26

Appendix C, part 1

Dealing with

information flow and management

dipping inimmerseddrowning

immediatedelayed

switching offturning over

singlemulti-mediainteractive

pass parcelscattergun

pushing packet unopenedpushing packet openedpushing packet filtered

proactivereactive

channelsmass

data and people

valuing datavaluing people

PLNPrN edtechproject

people by similar rolemixpeople by keyword

no costs of entrycosts of entry

fluid relationshipsfixed relationships

acting on dataconsuming data

known data sourceunknown data source

what it means to meet and to know people

mentormentee

publisherconsumer

access helpaccess group

full attentionno attention

known for actionsknown for role

shallow meetingdeep meeting

readingrespondingmeeting


27/34

27

likely to meetmay meetunlikely to meet

disinterested peripherysurveillance core

old grouping of peoplenew grouping of people

revealing oneselfconcealing oneself

delineating relationships by social setting

old friendsold worknew worknew friends

offlineonline

quantifyingtrying tonot quantifying

duty tono duty

exciting emergence of relationshipsmundane established relationships

peripheral core

moving inwardsmoving outwards

hidden networks/connections visible networks/connections

technologically mediatednot technologically mediated

participant attendee

positioning oneself in a/your network

PLN pre-definedindividually definedundefined

ownedexists

networknetworksblurred with everything

pushing datapulling data

known membershipunknown membership

open actions and thoughtsclosed actions and thoughts

keeping an eyeengaging

perceived flatperceived hierarchy

self-publication of data

artifactsfilteringaction

formalinformal

performativeautonomous


28/34

28

constructedoff the shelf

valued actionunvalued action

comfort...discomfort

individualgovernment

linked to focus of networkcrossovernot linked to focus of network

giving togiving and takingtaking from

giving wellgiving badly

needing to publishfeeling compelled to publishdisinterested in publishing

contributing mediacontributing supportnot contributing

how text becomes visible

knownnot yet knownunknown

permanenttemporary

subscribingtargetedhabit

interest in personinterest in data

single channelmulti-channels

published oncerepublished

wisdom of onewisdom of many

numberscomment

baton droppedpassed onbecomes a stickbecomes of use

visiblemissingmissed

accessing others mindaccessing others lived life

relevant to him or herirrelevant to him or her

text messageessay

displacement of artifacts change in workplace

the act of service

servicingbeing serviced

within a PLNcentre of my PLN

known beforenewly knownunknown

listeningtalkingdiscussing

groupindividual


29/34

29

aware of service roleunaware of service role

learning in a space other than a physical one

elevate network elevate teacher

crowd sourceexpert

formalinformal

preplanned spontaneous

texttalk

on tapordered

expertexpertise

onlineoffline

hidden expertisevisible expertise

visible reflectionhidden reflection

learner at the centrelearners at the centre

official channelunofficial channel

individuals experiences

centrecoreperiphery

silentloud

passivedormantdisappear

sanctionopportunity cost

easy to dropabandoningdifficult to drop

ignoringdiscarding

readingunable to read

socialformal

agencyamenablepersuaded

the nature of talk

multiplesingular

synchronousalmost synchronousbothasynchronous

connectedunconnected


30/34

30

boundedunbounded

directindirect

knownunknown

wading throughscooping up

forward focusedbackward focused

conversationventing

outcomes-based talkprofessional talksocial talk

affective projection

changedifferencereflectionbeing informed

always onbreaksalways off

urgencysocial

wasting timevaluable use of family time

nil responsesingle responsemulti-response

physical overloadmental overload

missing datanot missing data

interesteddisinterested

knowing PLNknowing family

in balance with networkout of balance with network

gratitude to persongratitude to networkno gratitude

learning and earning

improving practiceimproving performanceimproving profit

technon-tech

transmissionconstruction

collaborate with customers collaborate with competition

permanent work project work

artifacts and action was removed at this stage


31/34

31

Appendix C, part 2

Dealing with new relationships Dealing with new data Deal in with new spaces

dipping inimmerseddrowningimmediatedelayedswitching offturning oversinglemulti-mediainteractivepass parcelscattergunpushing packet unopenedpushing packet openedpushingpacket filteredproactivereactivechannelsmass

mentormenteepublisherconsumeraccess helpaccess groupfull attentionno attentionknown for actionsknown for roleshallow meetingdeep meetingreadingrespondingmeetinglikely to meetmay meetunlikely to meetdisinterested peripherysurveillance coreold grouping of peoplenew grouping of peoplerevealing oneselfconcealing oneself

old friendsold worknew worknew friendsofflineonlinequantifyingtrying tonot quantifyingduty tono dutyexciting emergence of relationshipsmundane establishedrelationshipsperipheral coremoving inwardsmoving outwardshidden networks/connections visiblenetworks/connectionstechnologically mediatednot technologically mediatedparticipant attendee

PLN pre-definedindividually definedundefinedownedexistsnetworknetworksblurred with everythingpushing datapulling dataknown membershipunknown membershipopen actions and thoughtsclosed actions and thoughtskeeping an eyeengagingperceived flatperceived hierarchy

artifactsfilteringactionformalinformal

performativeautonomousconstructedoff the shelfvalued actionunvalued actioncomfort...discomfortindividualgovernmentlinked to focus of networkcrossovernot linked to focus ofnetworkgiving togiving and takingtaking fromgiving wellgiving badlyneeding to publishfeeling compelled topublishdisinterested in publishingcontributin mediacontributin su ortnot contributin

knownnot yet knownunknownpermanenttemporarysubscribingtargetedhabitinterest in personinterest in datasingle channelmulti-channelspublished oncerepublishedwisdom of onewisdom of manynumberscommentbaton droppedpassed onbecomes a stickbecomes ousevisiblemissingmissedaccessing others mindaccessing others lived liferelevant to him or herirrelevant to him or hertext messageessaydis lacement of artifacts chan e in work lace

servicingbeing servicedwithin a PLNcentre of myPLNknown beforenewly knownunknown

listeningtalkingdiscussinggroupindividualaware of service roleunaware of service role

elevate network elevate teachercrowd sourceexpertformalinformal

preplanned spontaneoustexttalkon taporderedexpertexpertiseonlineofflinehidden expertisevisible expertisevisible reflectionhidden reflectionlearner at the centrelearners at the centreofficial channelunofficial channel

centrecoreperiphery

silentloudpassivedormantdisappearsanctionopportunity costeasy to dropabandoningdifficult to dropignoringdiscardingreadingunable to readsocialformalagencyamenablepersuaded

multiplesingularsynchronousalmost synchronousbothasynchronousconnectedunconnectedboundedunboundeddirectindirectknownunknownwading throughscooping upforward focusedbackward focusedconversationventingoutcomes-based talkprofessional talksocial talk

changedifferencereflectionbeing informedalways onbreaksalways offurgencysocialwasting timevaluable use of family timenil responsesingle responsemulti-responsephysical overloadmental overloadmissing datanot missing datainteresteddisinterestedknowing PLNknowing familyin balance with networkout of balance with networkgratitude to persongratitude to networkno gratitude

improving practiceimproving performanceimproving profittechnon-techtransmissionconstructioncollaborate with customers collaborate with competitionpermanent work project work

information flow and management

valuing datavaluing peoplePLNPrN edtechprojectpeople by similar rolemixpeople by keywordno costs of entrycosts of entryfluid relationshipsfixed relationshipsacting on dataconsuming data

known data sourceunknown data source

data and people

what it means to meet and to know people

positioning oneself in a/your network

self-publication of data

how text becomes visible

the act of service

individuals experiences

affective projection

learning and earning

edonis project categories,

subcategories, and emerging properties

and dimensions 25/9/09

delineating relationships by social setting

the nature of talk


32/34

32

Appendix D, part 1


33/34

33

Appendix D, part 2

Memo 25-11-09

The edonis participants spoke freely of networking and of feeling networked in a

communication landscape which has moved towards using more web-based

information and communication technology (ICT). Each has a long history of

playing with ICT and of utilising it within education; learning about new

possibilities in a self-directed manner, which appears to have moved from the

reading of textbooks to learning through their personal learning network (PLN).

This move to valuing communication mediated by web 2.0 technologies such as

blogs, web conferences and Twitter, has occurred during a period of time in

which the financial costs of having close-at-hand access to the internet 24-hours-

a-day have reduced significantly. The participants stated that they are

conversing with, reading, listening to, watching, and being influenced by

educators who are unconnected to their workplace or previous episodes of

professional development. They have enough knowledge of online spaces and

the paths of useful data, to enable them to purposefully structure their time to

consume or publish online educational content.

Many educationists now talk of having a personal learning network; particularly

those who actively use Twitter and associated social web technologies. The

building of ones PLN is regularly advocated in social, educational spaces;

particularly by those educationists who state that possessing such a network is

good for them, and by implication those colleagues and organisations who are

part of their network. However, each interviewee deeply reflected on their

actions and thoughts around their PLN; a term which, of interest, was never

grounded by them in any literature, for example connectivism (Siemens) or

communities of practice (Wenger). The term PLN was used loosely to describe

having great control over what information was pushed in their direction and

from whom data comes. As such, I find several properties and dimensions


34/34

emerging which provide a framework for analysing what is occurring (see poster

presentation). The interviewees provide a range of possible ways that one could

be positioned in their PLN. As much of the control over the composition of the

PLN is theirs, it does appear to be educator-centred and not child-centred. They

may speak of themselves firmly at the centre of the relationships and data flow,

or within it; possibly recognising the multiplicity of connections which may mean

that they are unrecognisable and not acknowledged by the owner of the PLN. It

appears that the much-used term, network may now be inappropriate as

educational data moves along established paths but also travels to those who

were previously unknown to the person making their text or other media visible;

or who remain invisible but are, nonetheless, affected by the published artifact. It

also involves accumulating connections as a potential audience for, or

collaboration around, self-published online educational content. It appears that

people fall in and out of someone elses PLN according to whether they are

presently noticed by the owner, or are involved in the pushing and pulling of

valued educational data.

The interviewees were aware that relationships, data and spaces are delineated

differently now, and despite giving examples of powerful communication and

collaboration, anxieties surfaced around ones standing in a network and in

education groupings such as the classroom or staffroom, populated by people

who, although often referred to as part of their PLN, are deficient in terms of not

having access to the knowledge, expertise, and service (commitment to support)

in place for the owner of the PLN. Opportunity costs of engaging with ones PLN

are becoming noticeable, such as: relaxing away from work; family life; and

meeting in existing non-online spaces with old contacts. On occasion, moving

from engaging with online data sources, relationships and spaces to only

keeping an eye-on, meant having to cope with: missing constant new data;

switching off from performative learning-for-work; and the possibility of the

number of valuable connections shrinking.

Documents

Grounded Theory analysis of data from edonis interviews 22-24